set_master_volume_db

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the unit (dB) and the unity-gain reference point, but says nothing about the acceptable range, clamping behavior, whether the change is immediate/reversible, or what the response contains for a mutating call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two terse sentences that are fully front-loaded: the action and resource come first, the unit convention second. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials (unit, unity reference). The missing piece is the permissible value range/limits, which matters for choosing a valid argument.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only says 'number'. The description compensates by stating the unit is dB and that 0 equals unity gain, which is the key semantic an agent needs to pick a value. It still omits any valid range or clipping limits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Set master track volume'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling set_track_volume_db via the word 'master'. It does not explicitly call out that sibling, so the differentiation is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick for per-track volume (set_track_volume_db). The only contextual information is the unit convention, not usage conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.